22 January 2008 6:14 PM

The dangerous uselessness of 'Euroscepticism'

Here we go again, another festival of pointless calls for a referendum on the EU constitution. The whole thing reminds me of dogs chasing cars. What would they do if they caught them? What would happen if they held a referendum, and everyone voted ‘No’? Well, we already know. Nothing good. Ask the people of France, Ireland and the Netherlands, all of whom at various times have said 'No' to EU plans. They've either been sent back to do it again and come up with the right answer, or they have been ignored. And then what do they do?

The EU isn't going to give up its plan to become a Superstate just because the people of Britain (or anywhere else) vote 'No' in a referendum. Why should it? Such a vote would be silly anyway. You can't be in Europe and not run by Europe any more than you can be in Wormwood Scrubs and not run by Wormwood Scrubs. When we were bamboozled into voting for Common Market entry in 1975 (I voted 'no', but only just) we accepted the Treaty of Rome, which means, and clearly states that its target is 'ever closer union.

This has become more and more unpopular since 1975, as those who are paying attention (or are personally affected) have come to realise that the supposed crackpots of 1975 -Tony Benn and Enoch Powell - were actually quite right. Just as they warned, we were being asked to give away our national independence and this was the most important issue. Those who are dismissed as 'bonkers' almost always do turn out to be right later on, and there is probably a historical study to be done about this.

The obvious conclusion from this is that we should now leave. We were sold a fraudulent prospectus nearly 33 years ago. We have since suffered quite badly as a country, economically and politically - the full cost has been detailed by Christopher Booker and Richard North in a series of books, the best of all being 'The Great Deception' - books largely ignored by many reviewers and journals. We have held back ( quite rightly) from plunging fully into the project, so that we still more or less retain our own currency and our own legal system , our own diplomatic service and our own armed forces, so there is not too much unscrambling to do. And there is a strong, reasoned case for negotiating an amicable departure. If Norway and Switzerland, both far smaller and less globally-connected than we, can negotiate individual terms with the EU, then why can't we?

Now, I am not saying these terms would be perfect. But thanks to the existence of the World Trade Organisation, the EU simply cannot erect huge trade barriers against us, as it could once have done, and would be crazy to do so anyway - as it sells far more to us than we do to it. Mexico, most certainly not an EU member, has excellent trade terms with the EU. If we want to keep the much-touted rights to live and work in the EU, we no doubt can. Norwegians and Swiss nationals have them. They even have - which we should never agree to - passport-free travel to and from EU countries.

To the extent that we wish to trade with the EU, we would be under pressure to agree to EU rules about what we sell. We would no doubt have to pay some sort of contribution to obtain the 'benefits' of EU membership. But we would be able to negotiate this from a position of strength much more advantageous than the one a British prime Minister now finds himself in at Euro-summits. They want our markets far more than we need theirs. We would have no need to need to accept the supremacy over our Parliament of the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. We would not be obliged to enact EU commission directives as British Acts of Parliament. We could issue our own passports in whatever colour we preferred (I favour a stiff-backed blue booklet myself) and (as does the USA and...Thailand) we could give our own citizens (we might let them become subjects again) greater rights to enter the country than persons from Lithuania or Romania. We could halt the absorption of our independent diplomatic service into the EU's. We could make our own individual trade agreements with the USA, and wouldn't need to get caught in trade wars between Washington and Brussels, as we frequently have been in the past. We could withdraw from the European arrest warrant system, and ignore the new 'Human Rights' commission in Vienna which is shortly to be the fount of political correctness across the EU.

All this is practicable, possible and well within our abilities as a major nation, quite grown up enough to manage on its own. The only reason it doesn't happen is that the leaderships of the main political parties won't put such a case to the British people. That is because they are both firmly biased in favour of our absorption into the Superstate, for reasons they have never been required to explain because they have never faced coherent opposition.

The large but powerless minority who understand the issue and know we could go it alone remain just that - a large and powerless minority. They would only become a majority if major political figures openly stated that we could go it alone, something they currently refuse to do though many of them know in private that it is so. So if EU membership (rather than the constitution) were put to the British people they would very likely vote to stay in, for fear of finding something worse. And, if this government is forced to hold a referendum on the constitution, it will contrive to turn it into a vote on EU membership, raising the stakes so as to frighten an ill-informed electorate into supporting the status quo.

But the energy which ought to be going into this is wasted on a thing called 'Euroscepticism', a political position as futile as its name is unwieldy. MPs in both major parties fritter away their energies on micro-complaints about the detailed operation of the EU, or individual issues of EU membership, while veering away from the issue of membership itself which is in fact the only point at which these wrongs can be righted. Their behaviour allows the party leaderships to treat the matter as an argument between those who want Britain to me more European EU and those who want Britain to be less European.

Next time a Tory (or Labour) MP tells you he or she is a 'Eurosceptic. Ask them just how long it is they are going to continue sitting in the middle of the road. They have been doubting this project now for decades. Isn't it time they made up their minds whether they support or oppose it? Nothing will happen until they openly oppose it. Those of you who continue to have illusions about the Useless Tories should note that Tory MPs who sign up to the 'Better off Out’ organisation seem to come under mysterious pressure to withdraw. And can I make a plea for any UKIP supporters not to bother me with yet more queries about why I don't support their hopeless Dad's Army Party. It's precisely because it hasn't a hope. Nothing will happen until the two major parties begin to collapse, and that's most easily begun with the Tories. Other entries on this blog, notably my archived posting from 16th October 2007, still available, deal with this at length.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To Allan MacGregor,
I'm going to make this a quick post as it's getting a bit old now.

I'm not going to go through each line of your answer as it's basically a download of lots of facts figures quotes etc that you have re the Bible and I'm not going to get dragged into a detailed discussion on the Christianity (and a lot of it is just dense fog of Bible speak and Bible facts etc and who said what to who etc) - but I think what you're really doing here is not trying to persuade me that there is a 'judgemental' God, but rather that my initial statement that "the views of so called 'experts' on the existence of God are not necessarily more valid than those who are not" is wrong - so you've tried to overwhelm me with loads of Bible stuff that you hope will make me think you are 'closer' to a God than I am (may or may not be true) and that your views ARE more valid because you've spent a lot of time on the subject. Well I don't intend to spend thousands of hours researching the Bible, Koran, Richard Dawkins etc as I've got a busy life to lead. All I will say is that the fact that other people who have spent most of their lives devoted to the Bible / Koran / other religions / science etc do not agree with each other shows that none of you can theoretically 'out-argue' the others - otherwise it would have all been sorted out a long time ago.

It would have been nice though if instead of trying to just overwhelm the discussion with a lot of dense/foggy Bible speak/stuff you had tried to address my point re whether people can be judged at the end of their lives on what they have done during it, given that their character and behaviour is subject to several different variables genes / soul / environment / luck / chance all of which theoretically are outside of their control and therefore it would not be equitable for a God to judge people in this way.
You just avoided this point and went off into your 'Bible mode'. I can't say that any of it convinced me - even if your knowledge of who said what to whom and what it meant was impressive etc and all factually correct and indicated a lot of knowledge on the subject.
Sorry, but if that's how Christians go about convincing people of their case these days, then no wander the churches are empty.

ps If God wanted people to believe in Him and Jesus by allowing Jesus to perform certain 'miracles' (2000 years ago) why did he not just go the whole hog and do some really brilliant miracles that would stand the test of time - like splitting a mountain in two so that we could all see the chasm for as long as the world existed? Instead we have lots of mini miracles that could just be placebo effects or hearsay turned into myths turned into legends over the course of time.
Again - logic indicates that what Jesus actually was just a brilliant, wonderful philosopher, prophet, teacher (whatever you want to call him) but not necessarily the Son of God given divine powers etc.

Even if the moderators choose not to print this, at least pass it on to Mr Hitchens. Do not edit this post. Either print in full or not at all.

Mr Hitchens, I'm unable to effectively debate with you on a number of issues, ADHD being just one. Likewise with the overwhelming absence of any peer-reviewed studies into the efficacy of Synthetic Phonics, if I attempt to link or quote anything here that would be a substantial challenge to the Mail on Sunday's 'assets' such as you, it simply will not be printed. I'm having to hold back an awful lot in the vain hope that you actually have done research on the matter rather than simply listened to a bunch of cranks and visited some websites 'sceptical' of ADHD. It has been my hope that you would go to some lengths to actually speak with someone with a university affiliation that actually researches and diagnoses many cases of ADHD. They could correct where I have been wrong and elaborate where I have been right. If you have already done this and still hold such opinions, there is nothing that can be done because you've mounted a position that can not be altered *no matter what evidence* is put to you, regardless of how much scrutiny it stands up to among scientists.

When I say 'implications' I don't simply mean it harms a status quo arrived at in other areas; it's nothing remotely as benign. Your version of 'objective' which isn't really objective at all but a canard arrived at by the anti-psychiatry movement(which I still do not think you are a part of even if you use the same canards) after failing to effectively criticise the science of it; they should have stuck to the ethics of it.

What it basically says is that the current methods which have been accurate in making predictions and correct in identifying conditions before physical tests for them were devised: is wrong. How do you suppose Alzheimers would be diagnosed under your system of 'objectivity'? We'd have to wait until the person is dead and look at their brain in post-mortem.

Your resident newspaper, being the credulous and psuedo-science supporting rag that it is(I've never seen so many snake-oil salesmen using the MoS to advertise in any other publication that wasn't itself a non-peer reviewed crank journal; it appears to be where their market is) never stops whining about 'care in the community' and never fails to report any serious crime by a mentally ill person. It's as if such people had never done anything good.

Well the problems they like to think are caused by 'care in the community' would be a hell of a lot worse if science and medicine went by the Peter Hitchens burden of proof. There would be no way to objectively diagnose anyone with any condition at all. Because what you are asking for is *STAR TREK* standards of science where the doctor waves a beeping console over our heads and the name of a condition comes up on screen.

And saying you have strong 'empirical' and 'circumstantial' evidence is a contradiction. Which do you have? It certainly isn't empirical. It's precisely your opinions that twin studies prove to be ill-founded. You still apparently don't understand how and why they work as an accurate tool.

The twin studies show that children diagnosed with ADHD are more likely to share certain genes that an average child. That is all. We don't as yet know which genes these are. What is called ADHD is a phenotype not a disorder.

To Mike Evan
Apologies; I haven’t been ignoring you or your post of 5 Feb, I’ve just been too busy of late.
The balance here is quite difficult to achieve. If I explain it too comprehensively, I am accused of being too clever. Explain it too simply and I am accused of being vague.
I never said that my God cannot be conceptualised. In fact Christianity is categorical in insisting that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Although that does n mean that God is confined to a corporeal form, we do at least have one member of the Godhead with whom we can identify. However, to say that he is like us is anthropomorphism. God is not like us; we are like him – in some respects. The concept you mention of ‘Mr God’ who resemble us and lives on a planet far, far away is actually more like Mormonism than Christianity.
Can he eat? Well, after his Resurrection Jesus cooked breakfast for his disciples.
You say: “your answer is a neat way of drawing a line between us and all of the other animals”.
No, my answer is based on the Bible’s categorical assertion that God created every creature after its own kind, except for man, who God made in his own image.
“(Also why did he create chimps who look like us (and Him?) and share 95-99% of our DNA?)”
Watch which facts you regurgitate and check out the details. This is an oft-cited statistic which is really quite selective. I could equally say that we share about 80% of our DNA with marine coral, but I won’t be joining the Great Barrier Reef in the near future.
The Creationist position is very simple: ‘A Common Designer’.
Why should a Creator God conform to your idea that all life be so different when economy of design means that most living creatures share the same inbuilt complexity needed to ensure life is possible and sustainable. Also, in order to make so food intrinsically edible, it helps that their amino acids, proteins and so on are compatible with our own design. If you don’t believe me, try eating a brick. It shares very little of our DNA – somewhere between zero and none at all, and consequently has negligible nutritional value.
The remainder of your arguments diverge quite widely from the point, because they are based on another premise, which makes meaningful discussion problematic.
The Bible appears quite complex at first glance. At about 880,000 words, 66 books, and written by some 40 writers over 1500 years, far from ‘getting all its ducks in a row’ it is remarkable that it should have any integrity, but it does. Together, it forms a remarkably coherent picture of God and man’s relationship to him; but I agree – not one that is always reflected by religion.
This is where is difficult to summarise the 880,000-word version, so, without reference to specific scriptures, you will just have to trust that I know what I am talking about. Not normally the basis upon which I would elect to teach anything, but necessary in these circumstances.
The mainstay of the Bible is that God created everything that exists, including man.
What the Bible then reveals is quite astonishing, compared to so much that other religions offer. God did not create man as some kind of dust-doll, or menial clay-clone, but as a being with whom he (God) always intended to share everything he has.
When the universe was first created it was perfect (no death, no suffering, no decay, etc.) and every creature was the recipient of God’s grace.
A celestial spirit being the Bible calls Helel Ben Shachar (a Hebrew name not transliterated in English versions) was commissioned by God to serve man, but aware of what God intended for man, coveted man’s position for himself.
In order for man to exercise true autonomy and free will, however, God had to allow him true choice, which he presented in the form of two trees. One was called the ‘tree of life’ and represented grace in the person of the Logos – the member of the Godhead who would later become known as Jesus Christ. The second was called the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and represented what the apostle Paul in the New Testament would call, ‘the Law of sin and death’.
But God did not just leave it there. He went so far as to warn man that the fruit of the second tree was deadly and forbad him from eating it, or, he warned, “in dying you shall die” (the literal Hebrew rendering).
Helel saw his chance and tempted man to disobey God and henceforth everything changed.
The essential difference between grace and law is that whereas grace is God’s undeserved favour, the law is a hard taskmaster, demanding that every benefit be paid for and every wrong punished. Man had chosen the law.
This should have been Helel’s greatest coup. By causing man to sin, choose the law, and step out from under grace, he had overthrown him from his rightful position, which he now inherited.
Unfortunately, Helel had failed to foresee the consequence that, by removing himself from grace and placing himself under law, this was precisely the legacy that he now inherited.
Now, not only did man found himself under law, but Helel and was judged accordingly, henceforth being renamed Adversary.
When the original Hebrew was translated into Latin by Jerome, Helel Ben Shachar became Lucifer, while Adversary is the meaning of Satan. Man is Adam, closely associated in Hebrew with Adom (red) and earth Adamah (earth).
Whether you see the Genesis account as literal or literary allusion, both work on at least one level.
God now had a problem. Having rejected his grace and chosen the law of sin and death, God had to treat man accordingly. Everything man did wrong had to be treated with severity and every good had to be striven for with effort. On the face of it, man was up the proverbial creek without a paddle; painted into a corner he could not extricate himself from.
However, being eternal and all-knowing, God foresaw that man would make the wrong choice, and being all-loving, he also made the perfect provision for getting man out of the hole he had dug for himself. God himself would dig man out of it.
Man had essentially sold himself into slavery to sin and God would somehow have to pay the ransom price and redeem him from it. Precisely the terms and language the Bible uses to describe what God did to rectify matters.
Throughout the Old Testament, a picture of God’s plan for man’s salvation (‘salvage’ is closer to the biblical term) until, in what the Bible calls ‘the fullness of time’, God the Father sent his own Son, Jesus to be that Ransom our Redeemer.
Being conceived by the Holy Spirit, living sinlessly as he did, and dying on the cross, Jesus fulfilled every requirement of the law on our behalf, rendering it impotent. That’s why Paul wrote in Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus”.
That’s the up and the down of it. In its absolute simplest terms: The Gospel.
Because it is a matter of grace, it must be accepted wholly in those terms. We don’t work for it, we don’t earn it and we don’t deserve it. If we did it would be law which, as Paul says, “frustrates the grace of God” Galatians 2:21. Almost the complete opposite of what religion requires and teaches. So much so, that Paul himself was frequently accused of teaching antinomian ism.
Indeed, our English word Gospel, is translated from a Greek word so unusual it hardly occurs outside the Bible – ‘euaggelion’ which we write as ‘evangel’. In the original it literally means ‘Good News’ but actually carried the connotation of ‘Nearly-Too-Good-To-Be-True-News’, which is why the Jewish writers of the New Testament chose it.
And it’s why Jesus was always well-received by ‘sinners’ but looked on as rather suspect by the religious people of his day. He ate and drank with harlots, tax-collectors (who were considered treacherous collaborators in his day), and adulterers to the extent that he was accused of being a drunkard himself.
What attracted them to Jesus was the same thing that attracted him to them: their total recognition that they could not help themselves. Religious people, however, believed they were already righteous and had already helped themselves. Their view of God was that he should be grateful that they even would condescend to believe in him. Jesus exemplified the difference in a parable concerning a sinner and a Pharisee.
God does not, therefore, hand out Brownie points, he dispenses grace. It is not vague but it is unfair – at God’s expense. It is almost too good to be true. A ‘something-for-nothing’ deal – which is what makes it so difficult to accept because, in our fallen world, the law of sin and death is what we are born into and what we instinctively understand.
For this reason Paul says that the message of the Cross is an offence to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Greeks (Gentiles). For instance, many people would find it quite offensive to suggest that Myra Hindley could go to heaven while Princess Diana might go to hell. But, if Myra Hindley’s repentance and faith were as real as she claimed them to be, and Diana’s rejection of Christianity all that it sometimes appeared, then that could well be the case. Although, I speak circumspectly, because I have no certain knowledge of either woman’s true spiritual condition.
The job of the Christian teacher is not to court popularity but to speak the truth, whatever the cost.

Mr McCarty may or may not be right that my requirement that objective treatments follow objective diagnoses has wider implications. So what if it has? The question under discussion is, am I right? Are there, or are there not, any objective methods for diagnosing 'ADHD'? And if ( as is the case) there are not, can it possibly be right for adults to force powerful ( and objective) psychotropics on defenceless children who are alleged to suffer from 'ADHD'? If applying the same rigorous standards were to cast doubt on other 'disorders' and changed practices elsewhere, then those changes should obviously be made. If not, not. I would need to know a great deal more about them to say. They do not, however, appear to me to share any positive characteristics with the baseless fiction known as 'ADHD'. Should I shut up about 'ADHD' because by drawing attention to its non-existence I (unintentionally) undermine other pseudo-medical piffle? I don't think so. If it is piffle, then it should be undermined. So why worry? But unless that is the implication of Mr McCarty's repetitive raising of this non-point, I do not know why he thinks it important. He denies that he intended to manoeuvre me into a position where he could allege that I belonged to some 'Anti-Psychiatry' movement (I don't), which would at least have been a rational explanation of his desire to bracket me with the critics of Schizophrenia.

Well, in that case, what on earth *is* the purpose of this repeated diversion, other than to draw attention from the fact that Mr McCarty lacks the grace to acknowledge that he has no objective evidence for the existence of his treasured 'ADHD'? I'm not specially interested in these other disorders. My interest in 'ADHD' stems from my linked interests in morality and responsibility, in the desertion of children by adults and the trashing of the schools by world-reformers. If other people wish to explore these implications in other areas, they should feel free to do so, but I shall not be joining them. I have other things to do.

I am only interested in the wrongful drugging of healthy children.

Mr McCarty's inability to understand that his twin studies can prove nothing about 'ADHD' until there is a reliable objective diagnosis of that complaint is verging on the obtuse.

Let me restate for perhaps the twentieth time that a) a minority of those claimed to be suffering from 'ADHD' may indeed have something physically wrong with them - but it is not 'ADHD' because the 'ADHD' diagnosis is applied to many others who are physically normal ; and that b) characteristics claimed by its partisans to be those of 'ADHD' are heritable. But they are not 'ADHD'. No amount of twin studies could overcome the main difficulty that. tedious and frustrating as it may be for its advocated, I demand objective proof of the existence of their alleged complaint. These studies do not simply fail to provide that proof. They assume the acceptance of the existence of 'ADHD'(without evidence) and are therefore useless for the purpose of persuading ADHD sceptics of the existence of the complaint. They only serve to reassure the believers in 'ADHD', who resort ot this sort of stuff, and another of their favourite arguments - that 'ADHD' has been very widely 'studied'- to avoid the point that its existence remains wholly unproven by normal scientific standards. The existence of the Yeti has been widely 'studied'. But it still doesn't exist.

Can anyone else explain to Mr McCarty that what he fancies to be his trump card is in fact nothing of the kind? I despair of doing so.

As for my 'causes of ADHD', Mr McCarty is quite right, these are my opinions, though based on strong empirical, circumstantial evidence, which is all I need under the circumstances. if I based potent drug prescriptions on such evidence, I might however be required to be a bit more specific. That's the whole point.

Mr Hitchens, if your definition for 'objective' actually applied, it would have implications beyond ADHD. This is why I pointed out a number of examples of where this would be th case.

Instead both you and Mr Lemon have chosen to cherry-pick singular where you think they contradict my point(Mr Lemon has talked about Downs and Schizophrenia, you just Schizophrenia). This does not in any way refute my point that if you were to apply your version of 'objective' to almost any known medical condition, it would not work. Absolutely none of your arguements about the difference between ADHD and Schizophrenia address this point.

Your supposed 'known causes' are not science but political viewpoints you have held and often espouse in your writings. In regard to ADHD they are also disproven by twin study research you don't appear to understand.

“Why does it matter if someone posts under a pseudonym? Because there is no justification in a free society for hiding his identity, and because if someone is not prepared to argue under his own name, what else is he concealing or misrepresenting? A name that is not your own is an act of dishonesty and/or concealment which infects everything else you put before it. The generally low standard of internet correspondence is only possible because of the widespread use of pseudonyms. They promote irresponsibility, I frown on them, and reserve the right to tease those who use them.”

Well, that is your opinion. Teasing is fine. However, I would argue that your claim that we live in a free society is tenuous, and that as there is no guarantee that things will not get much worse in the future, posting in a way that reduces the chances of one being identified now or subsequently gives one the freedom to express genuine opinions without self-censorship. In another context I was quite surprised how easily a total stranger could establish my identity and location, given a starting reference on the web. From my experience in other countries I doubt that many of those who post on your blog under their full real names would be at liberty long enough to be effective political dissidents should the need arise in the future. Public figures, of course, are usually, but not always, safer.

All very melodramatic of course, and couldn't possibly happen here old boy.

To reassure 'Rob', the word 'Blazhenka', so far as I know, means nothing, which is why I chose it, and why I said I chose it. No tricks involved. Because 'Disorder' means nothing as well. (Though it is true that "Vasiliy Blazhenniy Sobor" is how Muscovites refer to St Basil's Cathedral. Well spotted. There may be an idiomatic meaning for 'Blazhenka' which is a plausible Russian diminutive form, but my Russian is nothing like good enough to say). As for his opinion not having changed, my entire point has been that matters of fact are not decided by opinion, but by proofs composed of facts logically arranged. I am not interested in his opinion, but in the fact that Mr McCarty believes in a complaint for which there is no objective evidence, and 'Rob' appears to do so as well. The choice must be ideological, as I suggest above (and elaborate below), since it is in defiance of fact and logic and has the characteristics of faith. Mr McCarty has shown to my entire satisfaction that he has no proof for the existence of 'ADHD'. The silly part of this is that Mr McCarty doesn't seem to realise that he has no such proof. I fear I have also established that it's beyond me to do anything about that.

I should point out here that nothing I have said shows that I have 'special rules' for discussing ADHD. This is baseless piffle, employed by someone who has so comprehensively lost the argument over 'ADHD' that he seeks to conceal his defeat by changing the subject into a general debate about psychiatric disorders. The same person denies, in the face of clear incontrovertible evidence, that he has used ad hominem argument, which argues a doubled lack of respect for the rules of debate.

It is telling that he then also has the nerve to make this allegation that I apply special rules to the discussion of 'ADHD'. As I have repeatedly said, I have only written about Schizophrenia to show that a discussion of it is irrelevant to the discussion of 'ADHD'. No expert knowledge of either complaint is necessary to reach this conclusion, any more than you need an ornithologist to establish that a herring is not a bird and so is not comparable to a parrot in any argument about the qualities of birds. It is clear to the meanest intelligence that it is a wholly different thing from the supposed 'ADHD'.

I note (in this connection) that neither Mr McCarty nor 'Rob' has even bothered to acknowledge (let alone contest) the important logical point that I made that something can share negative characteristics with many things - while having no positive characteristics in common with the same things. It is the existence of positive common features that would make it relevant. There aren't any.

So I do not, as alleged, have 'special rules' for examining 'ADHD'. I have the same rules for examining any proposition. But I choose which subjects I seek to examine, for reasons I give at the time, examine each one, one at a time, and stick to it until I am done. I think a more relevant comparison would be with the equally phantasmal complaint called 'Dyslexia', another baseless invention designed to comfort adults over their failure to raise children properly, and to excuse their child victims for their consequent problems.

I referred to 'Rob' as 'Mr Rob', partly out of formality, (the use of the third person helps keep things cool) and because it is easier to put an apostrophe on the name, if you are also surrounding it with the quotation marks necessary to point out that the name is pseudonymous. Why does it matter if someone posts under a pseudonym? Because there is no justification in a free society for hiding his identity, and because if someone is not prepared to argue under his own name, what else is he concealing or misrepresenting? A name that is not your own is an act of dishonesty and/or concealment which infects everything else you put before it. The generally low standard of internet correspondence is only possible because of the widespread use of pseudonyms. They promote irresponsibility, I frown on them, and reserve the right to tease those who use them. Mr McCarty also provided another extraordinary misunderstanding/ misrepresentation of my case, viz " we don't know everything about the cause of ADHD, therefore it does not exist." This is simply not what I have said. In my view we know a lot about the causes of the behaviours wrongly classified as 'ADHD', and about the causes of the actions and misjudgements of the adults making those wrong judgements . They are: the neglect of children by adults and the desire of adults both to avoid blame for the neglect, and to classify the consequence of their dereliction as a hereditary or physical complaint which can be treated by mind-altering and docility-promoting drugs. Others
(as discussed) benefit from this arrangement in various professional or financial ways. The causes are in no doubt, and are evident. It is the *symptoms* that we do not know, for no objective description of them exists. It cannot exist, because they have no objective existence, but live only in the minds of the guilty and interested adults described above, and their apologists, promoters of child-centred education, wageslave motherhood, and the general abolition of individual responsibility and absolute morality, and of the idea of discipline imposed by example and precept. Lifelong marriage, full-time motherhood, the due punishment of responsible persons, self-discipline and external discipline, parental duty, adult authority, the sanctity of the family and the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong are concepts which actively horrify, frighten and disgust the whole modern establishment, so much so that they would rather drug healthy children than contemplate the restoration of virtue.

This is a political and religious question and you are either on one side or the other. That is why I am interested in it. But please don't pretend that there are any objective facts to support the case for 'ADHD'. There is not one, and the repeated multiplication of zero by evasive flannel still produces zero at the end. It's a faith, and very peculiar one. The interesting thing ( as with all faiths) is why they choose to hold it.

A psychiatrist might want to rule out "speed psychosis" (psychosis caused by amphetamines) before diagnosing schizophrenia. An investigative journalist posed as a mental patient to investigate psychiatric institutions, so psychiatrists certainly can be fooled sometimes.
There is a lot of rubbish on the web, Lucas. Just because an ill-informed person agrees with you doesn't make you wrong.
There is not enough evidence to support the conclusion that what is called ADHD is a psychiatric disorder. The diagnosis of ADHD rests on very shaky foundations.

May I just point out that at no point did I change the subject onto Schizophrenia; that was the whole objective of providing numerous examples of where Mr Hitchens' definition of 'objective' does not apply and reaches into Star Trek science.

Only Mr Lemon and Mr Hitchens have chosen to single out Schizophrenia as if the other examples I gave were never mentioned.

I have not avoided or ignored any of Mr Hitchens responses, I even gone to great lengths to explain why they are in fact canards of the type that can be found on any number of denialist websites for all kinds of conditions, usually mental conditions and ADHD included. Mr Hitchens is setting a trap; his requests amount to a trick question. I can not provide evidence which meets his definition of 'objective' because it exists for no mental condition known to science, except for a few conditions like Alzheimers which require a post-mortem. I have declined to provide links to studies on medication-niave subjects in response to his past comments about brain scans being worthless because they were influenced by medication, because I have not been given any assurances that he will not move the goalposts once this is presented to him.

Tim, when you wrote that the diagnosis of ADHD, “unlike other psychiatric disorders, depends on a subjective assessment by the medical worker” I was lead to believe that you had a fairly limited knowledge of the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and its history. If I was mistaken in this, I apologise.

I neither agree nor disagree with Froehlich as I have not read the study – your link was to a report of the studies findings. Neither do I believe that her conclusions, whether justified or not, would be of much significance in the present discussion, which it is probably now time to conclude.

However, if you yourself have read the study, perhaps you could inform us just how disparate the “communities” in the USA that were looked at were – I suppose it is quite possible that they were far more removed from each other than, say, the populations of England and Scotland. Or were they all in one place, but at different socio-economic levels, or of different cultural backgrounds, as the word “community” is often used here? Also I can’t help but notice that although, as you have repeatedly emphasised, the study is a recent one, it is itself reporting on the findings of previous studies, and we are not told when they took place.

Finally, just as a matter of interest, if she was interested in variation in the diagnosis of ADHD, why did Froehlich compare its prevalence, which measure is also susceptible to variation in treatment of the disorder, rather than its incidence?

I know a little about the history of psychiatry already, thanks, Rob. I understood perfectly well that the research in question was on the prevalence of ADHD. The quotation from the scientific paper in your post, Rob, doesn't effect my argument. For example, heart disease is much more common in Scotland than England due to diet and smoking. Do you disagree with Froehlich and her colleagues who "noted in their report that previous research has discovered ADHD prevalence rates that range from 2 percent to 26 percent in community samples, due to different modes of ADHD detection"? (They are referring to communities in the United States, of course.) We would expect prevalence rates to be roughly the same across communities, as is the case with schizophrenia. These are not just teething problems and this is not an old article it was published in October, 2007. Does this disorder even exist?

And so the discussion ends. I still hold my opinion, which I did stress at the outset was just my opinion, and Peter Hitchens holds his.

Just for the record, in case anyone else apart from Tim has the misfortune still to be following this, and contrary to Peter Hitchens’ innuendo, at no time have I advocated the use of drugs to treat ADHD – I quite clearly stated that I did not know enough about the treatment of this disorder, but would want to see a detailed explanation of how such drugs were supposed to work, and that I am uneasy about current levels of prescription. However, I suppose it is always good to leave with a parting volley, or at least to lay a few booby-traps.

The most frustrating thing is that I have no idea what a Blazhenka is – I assume I know the root of the word, as used in the Russian for Saint Basil’s Cathedral for example, but this may have very little obvious relevance if it is Russian slang – perhaps it is a technical term. Low blow PH.

Mr Lemon, whilst not wanting to change the subject onto Schizophrenia, I'm afraid your hypothetical King of Spain example is still a cherry-picked one and still has it's own self-contained faults.

Anybody can tell a Psychiatrist they are the King of Spain and a Psychiatrist can correctly tell them they are wrong. This in no way helps the practitioner tell if the individual actually believes they are the King of Spain. Under Mr Hitchens' criteria for objectivity, the tools a diagnostician would use to tell if this was the case are subjective.

Not all Schizophrenia is delusional Schizophrenia-Psychosis and most delusions are very mild. It's not possible to tell if they are real or genuine without considerable investigation. People can also only have temporary Psychosis and not be Schizophrenic at all. Nearly everyone has hallucinations and delusions, they are needed to cope with life. A diagnostician has to decide very subjectively(according to Mr Hitchen's definition of subjective/objective) when this becomes detrimental to the person.

But I'll repeat that I don't want the subject to change onto Schizophrenia(it's been changed enough times in this thread already: the Euroskeptics to the EU, the EU to religion, religion to ADHD). I still fear Mr Lemon is focusing too much on just one of the examples I gave. I hope he's not doing this to find something simply to prove me wrong about the bar of evidence considered 'objective' in mental conditions; I did after all list quite a few other examples. Finding something in just one specific diagnosis does not defeat the whole arguement about all diagnoses including ADHD in general.

Regarding the large differential in incidence: you have answered your own challenge there Mr Lemon. Detecting incidence rates in ADHD(where there is a considerable lack of adult provision) is inaccurate, Schizophrenia not such much because it has had a long time to get measures in place. Most incidence records tend to be from non-educational service providers, of which Schizophrenia has far more provision than ADHD.

How incidence for mental conditions is recorded is poorly understood, which is why some irresponsible sections of the media and a couple of cranks like to pretend there is an 'Autism epidenic', because in 1994 the methods of detecting incidence for this condition changed, as did the diagnostic criteria. This explains the surge in detected cases when the actual number of Autistic people doesn't appear to have raised at all.

I'll reiterate my point about the DSM: it is not the tool used to diagnose(every condition has a seperate tool to diagnose it, Autism for example has ADOS and ADI-R) nor does it strictly contain definitions. If it for example gives criteria for a condition the doctor that does a diagnosis must use a tool which can give an objective interpretation to 'lack of concentration' which is consistent with other criteria such as 'impaired social interaction'. In Autism 'lack of imaginative play' is a DSM criteria but no one has any objective idea of what an Autistic might be imagining. The specific tool for diagnosing ASD is designed to interprete and clarify such vague criteria.

I'm currently trying to find the diagnosis tool for ADHD on the net but I keep bumping into crank ADHD denialist sites. They do for public understanding of science what King Herod did for baby-sitting.

No, not really Tim. Taking snapshots of a continuing process, which I would suggest the search for increased validity and reliability in the diagnosis of ADHD is, is often misleading, as you lose the context in which to place your observations – have I mentioned this before? Please read a little about the history of other psychiatric conditions.

I am quite willing to concede that variation will occur in the rates of incidence (also please note the difference between incidence and prevalence when looking at figures) of ADHD due to variation in diagnostic criteria or procedures – the elimination of such variation is a very worthy aim.

However, please read the following – applying your logic would produce some quite startling conclusions!

"The general conclusion is that according to the great majority of studies, the prevalence and incidence rates of schizophrenia are similar across populations. However, a small number of populations have been identified that clearly deviate from this central tendency. The magnitude of these deviations is modest compared with the difference observed across populations with regard to other multifactorial diseases such as diabetes, ischaemic heart disease or cancer, where 10- to 30-fold differences in prevalence across populations are not uncommon."
Jablensky & Kalaydjieva; Genetic epidemiology of schizophrenia: phenotypes, risk factors, and reproductive behaviour. Am J Psychiatry 2003

I did not, as 'Rob' suggests, bring Schizophrenia into the discussion of 'ADHD'. I responded to Mr McCarty's introduction of the subject - a completely distinct action with different implications. I don't think it has anything to do with the empirical question of whether 'ADHD' exists, and have no wish to discuss Schizophrenia here.

I don't recall, either, accusing 'Rob' of 'total ignorance'. My only mention of the word 'ignorance' in this discussion has been to advise people to admit ignorance where they suffer from it. If he recalls, it was my challenge to his proclamation that Mr McCarty had won the argument over 'ADHD' that began this discussion. I said, and continue to say, that it seemed to me that Mr McCarty had failed to come up with any objective evidence for the existence of 'ADHD', which was my main challenge to him. He has still failed to come up with that evidence, and has been unresponsive to almost every single factual and logical point that I have made to support my assertion that there is no evidence for it. he has also, importantly in my view, to admit, in the face of clear factual evidence, that he has used 'ad hominem' techniques in his argument.

He has tried to drive round the houses to conceal these problems, with disquisitions upon what 'objective' means, which I have answered without acknowledgement from him - and with question-begging rambles through 'twin studies' and heritability, which I have dealt with thoroughly, and again without proper acknowledgement from him.

By the way, I think it kind of Mr Lemon to suggest that Mr McCarty and I really agree, and that we could compromise on a form saying that 'ADHD' is not a 'disorder'. Regrettably, this would not satisfy me. Part of the problem with this discussion is that the word 'disorder' itself suffers from serious subjectivity and vagueness. This is known to professionals, and those schooled in the modish ideology of 'educational psychology', which is more of a belief system than an exact science. But it is generally not known to lay people, especially to the parents of children dosed with methylphenidate and amphetamines. 'ADHD' may well be a 'disorder', given the cloudiness of the definition of 'disorder'. But so what? You might as well also say that it was (say) a 'Blazhenka', another word without meaning. The problem is that, while defined as a vague 'disorder' it is 'treated' as if it were a specific 'disease', which it most emphatically is not.

Sadly, many of the the people on the receiving end of this treatment do not know the difference.

I think my original point is satisfactorily made and successfully defended, and remains unchallenged by anything which Mr McCarty or 'Rob' have put up. If 'Rob' still agrees with Mr McCarty then it is not because Mr McCarty has proved anything, because he hasn't, or because he has disproved anything, because he hasn't done that either.

It is because 'Rob' is taking sides, as the supporter of a particular sociological and moral tendency, over whether it is right for subjectively diagnosed complaints to be treated by objective methods, and whether healthy human behaviour ought to be controlled by drugs for the convenience of authority - not because he has established that 'ADHD' has an objective existence. It plainly hasn't. I shall withdraw from this discussion until somebody produces a factual or logical contribution which alters that position.

The incidence of schizophrenia is consistent across populations at about 1 percent. If you read the literature, great care has been taken to ensure that diagnosis is not subjective. An article from 2007 in the American Psychiatric Association newspaper http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/20/18-a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ADHD&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT stated that "Froehlich [the researcher] and her colleagues noted in their report that previous research has discovered ADHD prevalence rates that range from 2 percent to 26 percent in community samples, due to different modes of ADHD detection." So clearly, ADHD diagnosis has been subjective in the past to a large degree. The difference between 2 percent and 26 percent is enormous: one researcher is reporting rates of ADHD 13 times that of the other. Notice, also, that this is not an old article, it was published in October, 2007. Game, set and match to me, I think.

Are you absolutely sure that the diagnosis of other psychiatric disorders does not depend in any way on a subjective assessment? On a previous post (7 Feb 6.33pm) I did try to point out the scope for subjectivity in the diagnosis of Schizophrenia – and note I only began referring to this condition after both Lucas McCarty and Peter Hitchens had brought it into the debate. Perhaps it would be educational for you to Google Diagnosis of Psychopathy for some really subjective stuff.

By the way, if I was under the delusion that I was the King of Spain, there would as you write, be little difficulty in objectively proving me wrong – we all know that Ashley Giles is. But as you’ve always struck me as being open-minded, I’m sure you can think of examples of people who have been denounced as deluded by all and sundry who were subsequently shown to be quite correct; and it is in practice also difficult to objectively assess whether someone is deluded or not when they claim, say, that they are being persecuted by the rest of their family at home.

Please also bear in mind that some of the self-reported symptoms of one condition may also be present in another – hearing voices for example, as I previously posted quoting from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Incidentally, although it was awarded rather a long time ago, I do have a Master’s degree in educational psychology, despite Peter Hitchens’ assured protestations of my total ignorance, so I do know that diagnosis of psychiatric conditions is generally not as clear cut as he likes to portray – which is what I agreed with Lucas Mccarty on in the first place!

I think Peter Hitchens is saying that schizophrenia has certain objective features or symptoms like psychosis and delusions. A patient with schizophrenia may believe that they are the king of Spain. The psychiatrist is in a position to say, objectively, that the patient is not in fact the king of Spain. This is an example of a delusion, of course. Does ADHD have objective symptoms like this? On the 6th of February at 4:43pm on this thread, Peter Hitchens posted the check list from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The items on the check list, I think you will agree, seem to apply to almost all children, expecially boys. To quote from the manual: "Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months to a point that is disruptive." The diagnosis of ADHD, then, depends on the subjective assessment of the medical professional as to what is deemed "disruptive". The Psychiatric Association manual goes on to say: "There must be clear evidence of significant impairment in social, school, or work functioning." But this depends on the subjective assessment of the health worker at to what is deemed "impairement in... functioning." If my child was not progressing well in reading, writing and arithmetic, I might not deem it "impairment in... functioning." I might blame the school's teachers or their teaching methods. Notice that the child only has to have "impairment" in either "school, social *or* work functioning".
So, the diagnosis of ADHD, unlike other psychiatric disorders, depends on a subjective assessment by the medical worker. If you go to your doctor fifty times and he tells you each time that there's nothing wrong with you then you're, objectively, a hypochondriac!

I agree that our current political class and system need to be destroyed, I also feel that if we wait until we can all agree on something to replace it we will get nowhere. So, given the vast antipathy to MPs and the Commons, I propose that we can do something now, with minimal effort to ourselves, but with maximum discomfort to the status quo. Given that so many of us have to earn our living and find it increasingly hard to do so given the taxes and the 'outsourced' labour market, where companies can, with the connivance of our politicians, evade the employment legislation they introduce, we need to provide something simple that can undermine the comfort of all parties and our elected masters. My ten minute plan to shake Parliament to its foundations is here, whether it actually does so, I've no idea, but sometimes an idea takes flight simply because its time has come. I hope that this may be the case here.

I do not want to talk about other conditions like Schizophrenia, Autism, etc.

Merely pointing out that there is no evidence for them that fits Mr Hitchens' criteria for 'objective' does not change this. It simply asks why Mr Hitchens has special rules for ADHD.

Mr Hitchens doesn't provide a link for the 'most famous' study he talks about; but there are plenty of similar ones addressing his concerns if he does a search in PubMed for 'ADHD' and 'medication-niave' if I spelt it right.

Mr Hitchens; your argument is now more defined: we don't know everything about the cause of ADHD, therefore it does not exist. Even Alzheimer's disease isn't diagnosable by his criteria until post-mortem examination. If scientists had never looked at victims brains, those folks could be all faking it if we were to apply Mr Hitchens criteria. Seriously this was even parodied in an adult cartoon I saw once. I know of no mental condition which is diagnosed or proven based on the physical evidence Mr Hitchens requires.

I've noticed Mr Lemon is now making an argument that I support: "This does not prove that ADHD is a disorder". This is distinctly different from what you are saying Mr Hitchens. He doesn't deny ADHD exists, just that 'disorder' isn't a suitable description for it. Is it possible you're both saying the same thing except for this one caveat?

Once again on the twin studies: there are people that say some children can't concentrate in class because there is no discipline, the subject is boring, the teacher doesn't excite them or their diet is poor. Oh but this manages to apply only to some children whilst quite a lot of others do just fine, even if we could debate forever the actual merits of what they are being taught. At home; if the child has many of the same problems, they have many of the same causes with the parent replacing the teacher. This is the very generalised version of what ADHD sceptics think: there is nothing wrong with them(usually boys), it's their enviroment, it is only other people that experience the effects of so-called ADHD, not the individuals themselves and we'll ignore what the diagnosed persons actually have to say about it.

This is why I think Mr Hitchens rather missed the point of what a twin study does: it demonstrates whether the above ideas are right and wrong. Social influences are eliminated as potential causes for difficulties experienced. It doesn't matter if the subject screening is done by ADHD specialists or people that believe in ADHD or not just as long as they are trained to use the standardised diagnostic tools(for Autism they are the ADOS and ADI-R, I'm looking for the ADHD equivalent tools on the web) so every subject is screened in the same way.

So if the difficulties are not caused by the social-enviroment as is the fruitlessly-argued case made by ADHD sceptics/deniers since time began, what would Mr Hitchens propose is the alternative cause?

Psychologists also do not have any vested interest in diagnosis: as they are not medical doctors, they do not prescribe medication, it is rare that they ever see a subject they diagnose ever again. Most diagnoses are done by Psychologists doing research. Cases where a professional has the qualifications to both diagnose and prescribe medication are not the norm although this appears to be very different in the US.

Your lack of detailed knowledge pertains to the diagnosis of psychiatric conditions (for want of a better term) in general – and it is a great handicap as it has led you to do exactly what Lucas McCarty has consistently accused you of, namely that

“you are asking for a burden of proof in excess of many other diagnosed conditions. This itself places the burden of proof on you to explain why ADHD should have a higher standard of evidence than conditions like Autism, Schizophrenia and William-Prader Syndrome, which currently share the same standard of evidence and diagnostic criteria as ADHD.”
1 Feb 5.56pm

It’s no good just saying you are not interested in any of the other conditions and wish to discuss ADHD in isolation.

You now write, regarding schizophrenia,

“I do not claim to have any valid opinions on it, or any detailed knowledge either.”

And yet you concluded your lengthy post of 6 Feb 4.47pm with the cry

“How can anyone equate this stuff with the great heartbreaking tragedy of schizophrenia, a mind overthrown by misery?”
How strange…..or disingenuous…

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, but please no more of the little tricks – the asides about the techniques of argument, mentioning that I do not post under my full name (what on earth has that to do with anything?), your accusations of snide comments (which are obviously far beneath you– reference again your post of 6 Feb 4.47pm). I did appreciate how you started referring to me as “Mr Rob” – quite like Mr Ben I suppose, and another little denigration trick.. How clever. That, of course, was a snide comment.

By all means refuse to argue further, it is your ball after all, and truth be told the debate ended a long time ago when you refused to consider placing the diagnosis of ADHD in the context of the diagnosis of other disorders.

It is a shame in a way, because you probably have done a great deal of research into ADHD, and almost certainly have a superior knowledge of its “treatment “ than I do – and you, Lucas McCarty and I are probably in agreement that the mass medication of children diagnosed with ADHD is unsettling to say the least – and you, with your superior knowledge may claim that it is plain wrong, and I would either defer to your superior knowledge, or make it my business to acquaint myself more fully with the facts.

A very studied piece on 'ADHD', Peter and your sensitive strand on schizophrenia, very touching.

On London, the Greater London Regional Assembly is elected in a very, alas EU-favoured, way. I'm not sure who will win but I doubt if London will be administered any better. What is the best way to administer a world-class great metropolis?

Studies have shown that cannabis use, especially at a young age, increases the chances of getting schizophrenia; no one is saying the same about cigarette smoking. For some reason, psychiatric patients are usually smokers.

The Twin studies didn't establish that the children diagnosed with ADHD have an "actual condition". The ADHD twin studies, adoption studies, and family studies showed that a number of genes were associated with the group that had been found to be exhibiting "hyperactivity". This does not prove that ADHD is a disorder.

I'm currently reading a fascinating biography on Albert Einstein. Many teachers considered Einstein a disruptive and impudent student. In one school incident at an early age, a teacher firmly rebuked young Albert. When Einstein protested his innocence, the teacher replied “Yes, that is true, but you sit there in the back row and smile, and your mere presence here spoils the respect of the class for me”. He was expelled from the class for the entire year, whereas today they’d most likely just exclaim “drug him!” and proceed to do so. Well either that or they would log “smiling aloofly” as a criterion of ADHD and then proceed to drug him.

Furthermore, another teacher once said of him that he'd never amount to anything due to his forgetfulness, and was often noted by others for perpetually failing to remember items such as house keys et al. The categories of this DSM-IV certainly seems to encompass almost anyone if the need be, and seems to be experimented on those considered an inconvenience to current convention.

Now apart from reading this blog, my knowledge of ADHD is rather scant. However it does seem to me that this ‘condition’ is becoming more prevalent as education and parental standards continue to decline, and that the subject is made a smoke screen for this. But perhaps I’m just a paranoid schizophrenic?!

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.